Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjeev Kumar, J
Rakesh Kumar Gudda S/o Prem Nath – Appellant
Versus
Ut Of J & K Through Station House Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CRM (M) No. 603/2021
1. This quashment petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“the Cr.P.C”] is directed against an order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur [“the trial court”] in Sessions Case 19/2020 titled UT of J & K Vs. Munish Singh & Ors. whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code [“the IPC”] and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.
2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. R K Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to take note of the prosecution case as is presented before the trial court:
2.1. On 02.07.2020, information from a reliable source was received at Police Station Udhampur that some unknown person or persons have committed the murder of one Rahul Bhagat S/o Subash Chander Bhagat at Dhandyal, Udhampur and the dead body was lying on the spot. On disclosure of commission of cognizable offence, an FIR was registered at the Police Station and the investigation commenced.
2.2. On 03.07.2020, accused Munish Singh S/o Madan Singh R
The court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges based on sufficient circumstantial evidence and confessions, emphasizing the admissibility of evidence under the Evidence Act.
Co-accused disclosure statement and call detail records alone insufficient to deny regular bail in NDPS case involving commercial quantity, as statement inadmissible and no prima facie case establish....
A discharge application must be allowed if the prosecution's evidence, particularly confessions of co-accused, is inadmissible and no other corroborative evidence is present.
Prosecution must establish agreement and actions for conspiracy, which can be proved via circumstantial evidence; minor investigative flaws do not negate reliable witness testimony.
In criminal law, accomplice testimonies must be corroborated by independent evidence for conviction; mere witness hostility does not invalidate supportive testimony.
Reliability of statements of PWs - To pronounce a verdict on reliability of statements of PWs, who have clearly in their statements linked petitioner with commission of alleged crime.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
